As I told you earlier, the Biden Harris administration is planning more Second Amendment infringements. We now know more about the time frames.

• The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”
• The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.
• The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states: Red flag laws allow family members or law enforcement to petition for a court order temporarily barring people in crisis from accessing firearms if they present a danger to themselves or others.

The first two will require Administrative Procedures Act rule-making with public commenting. The Zelman Partisans will provide links for comments when they are published. But why wait until then to prepare? Start working on comments now. I have some draft comments you may wish to work with.

Pistol Brace = Short Barrel Rifle
I expect them to dust off the same one they floated last year, so this may work:

The ATF has not presented any “objective factors” to determine whether a pistol-braced firearm is a pistol or short-barreled rifle.

No single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis.”

That is no more than fancy language for Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s infamous, “I know it when I see it.”

That statement would appear to leave us precisely where we are now: at the mercy of a proven arbitrary and capricious federal agency bound to infringe upon the Second Amendment. But it is really worse than that. By including “length of pull” in the “factors,” the ATF starts with the assumption that a braced firearm is a short-barreled rifle until and unless it is proven otherwise.

An objective definition of pistol brace would be: A device designed to aid a user in holding a large pistol with one hand, which extends no further than the user’s forearm when gripping the firearm normally, and which conforms to the user’s forearm.

“Ghost Gun” Unfinished Frames/Receivers
Rumors of this circulated last month, so I’ll draw upon my remarks then for potential commenting:

I object to the classification of unfinished parts as firearms.

Per 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(3)
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Per 27 CFR § 478.1
Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

Taking the AR-pattern lower “receiver” as an example: , that does provide housing for the trigger group and hammer. But note the lack of the rest of the firing mechanism, the firing pin. That goes in the upper, which is not considered a firearm. No does the lower house the bolt/breechblock. It doesn’t even have an attach point for the barrel. One characteristic out of four magically makes it a “firearm.” Federal courts have taken note of this, and dismissed firearm possession charges against those who had unassembled lowers.

An UNFINISHED frame or receiver doesn’t provide housing for any component, nor does it have a barrel attach point. That is WHY it is unfinished.

If you administratively enact this proposed rule, you will open up the can of worms that is most semiautomatic pistol frames: no bolt or breechblock, no barrel attach point, no firing pin or striker. Under current law, most unassembled semiautomatic pistols are not “firearms,” and we will take the point to court as part of demonstrating why your proposed rule on unfinished parts fails to meet legal definitions.

Model Red Flag Law
This amounts to a “white paper,”s o doesn’t get a rule-making process. But sending the Attorney General some remarks… well, won’t really do any good, but it can’t hurt.

The state of Florida enacted a “red flag” law on March 9, 2018 in response to the Parkland school shooting. It has proven ineffective.

For two years prior to enactment, Florida’s homicide rate was in decline. Its suicide rate was flat.

In the first year after passage, both homicide and suicide rates increased; dramatically so in the case of suicides. Two years after passage both rates are still above pre-“red flag” rates.

If correlation were causation, we would be forced to consider “red flag” laws as equally dangerous to rights AND lives.